The police trainers in the video made a point of mentioning that the training they gave the kids was far in excess of what is required to obtain a CCW permit.

Simply having a few minutes of instruction doesn't confer competence. It would be a bit like giving someone a half hour demo on how a car works, and then expecting them to get behind the wheel. Sure they'll have an intellectual understanding of what the controls do and so forth, but it takes time to get comfortable with the operation of the machine and it takes experience to build up the unconscious competence that experienced drivers have.

Speaking for myself and pretty much every other gun owner I know, they didn't run out and buy a gun and apply for a carry permit and just start packing. It tends to be something you ease yourself into. You practice shooting and getting a feel for how the gun functions and the basic technique. Eventually you start trying out different holsters, and seeing what works and what doesn't. Then at some point you make the leap to actually carrying.

I had my carry permit for almost two years before I got to that point.

Bold mine. Do you really think this is standard? I have a very hard time accepting that the majority or even a plurarity of CCW holders are this responsible.

If you're going to go through this process to ensure you can carry safely before you actually go ahead and carry anyway, what on earth is the problem with making it a requirement? Just change CCW laws so that everyone has to be as responsible as eXceLon, and you now have a sensible licensing system.

It was mostly a thought experiment to see if you cared more about personal defence and CCW than you do about the right to own an AR-15.

The majority of gun control proposals presented here are thought experiments to find out which types of gun control RKBA advocates would accept first.

Of course they are. We want to understand your point of view, and what your priorities are. It's impossible to have a discussion about reform otherwise.

Currently the response of you and others like you is to say "no" to anything based on the thinking that if you give an inch, gun control advocates will take a mile. That's the wrong way to look at it. If public opinion ever swings strongly in support of gun control (it doesn't even have to be a majority, as long as the opposition is based in seats the Democrats would lose regardless), the choice of "don't budge an inch" won't be available. You'll have to compromise, which means deciding which aspects of gun ownership are the most important to you, and which are the least important.

Please specify which aspect of the proposed legislation infringes upon the second amendment. Here's Scalia, in the majority opinion for DC v Heller:

Quote:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Longstanding prohibitions. This is as explicit an acknowledgment of stare decisis and maintenance of status quo as you'll find in any opinion. The constitutionality of longstanding prohibitions is, of course, only tangentially examined, because it all rests on Miller.

The recently proposed legislation isn't a longstanding prohibition and also doesn't fall under the examples given.

You are cherry picking. The full phrase was "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill".

Since 1998, eight of the 10 highest days for gun background checks have taken place since the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, according to the FBI.

Background checks are the most reliable way to track the number of gun sales, and data from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System show that over the last 6 weeks, these checks have reached their highest levels in fifteen years.

Gun shop owners told CNNMoney that semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines are flying off shelves, as the Newtown shooting ignited a national debate about firearms and the Second Amendment.

Experts say firearm enthusiasts are buying up guns while they have the chance, since many are worried that their right to buy assault weapons could be curtailed with gun control legislation.

Americans aren't buying everything off the shelves merely so it can be confiscated or seized by the government.

These people talk a lot about liberty and freedom and love to call themselves patriots, but they seem to have a real problem with democracy. In a democracy, if people are proposing a law you don't like, you criticize it, you argue against it, you campaign against it, you vote against the politicians who support it. But if you believe in democracy, you don't threaten to start killing people if it passes. You don't say that if you don't like a new law, you'll start an insurrection to overthrow the government.

Before I started carrying concealed, I took a 5 day training course from Thunder Ranch. I had always wanted to attend one of these classes, from reading magazine articles about them, and felt obligated to be at least somewhat competent before strapping on a pistol. I had not (and still have not) received any worthwhile instruction from the Navy, so I went out and got instruction myself, on my own dime.I didn't get my permit until after I got training, and a decent holster/belt combo. When I did start carrying, it felt weird, and I was always worried that others would notice.Now, it feels perfectly normal, and I know that, properly carried in a good holster, I don't have to worry about it being noticed.

Regarding M. Jones' post about NICS checks, I would add that what dealers are selling out of is anything with military utility. Not just AR-15s, but Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifles, and any other type of rifle with military origins, along with the ammunition they fire, and any accessories that might potentially on a ban list. All of them are sold out, everywhere, and new stock disappears in minutes.Your typical scoped hunting rifle is still as available as ever, as long as it isn't in .308 Winchester. Same with your typical bird gun shotgun, and most shotgun ammo is still widely available.Oddly enough, after perusing a few of my normal online ammo retailers, .45 ACP ammo is still about where it was before Sandy Hook, and 9mm is now more expensive than .45, which is decidedly odd. I might switch to using one of my 1911s for carry for a while, in fact, as the practice cost is now a non issue.

If you have statistics showing that a large proportion of CCW holders don't actually carry regularly, I'd love to see them.

I'm as much of a fan of statistics and hard data as anyone, but it amuses me the type of things that people expect statistics to exist for.

Based on my experience I suspect that the vast majority of people who are in possession of a concealed carry permit rarely carry, or do so only sporadically. Keep in mind that some people obtain their permit solely to simplify transportation of their firearms, since many states have convoluted and poorly written laws regarding transporting a firearm in a vehicle. Simply having a carry permit makes most of the legal gotchas disappear, which is useful even if you never actually intend on carrying.

An anecdote:

About two years ago I attended an "orientation" session of sorts, that was introducing people to the rules and practices of a particular action-shooting sport (USPSA). Decent sized crowd, probably 50 people showed up. All experienced pistol shooters, but new to this particular sport. After the classroom portion they told everyone to gear up, so we could all head out to the range for the shooting portion. Everyone starts strapping on their gun belts, removing their pistols from their cases and holstering them, and so forth.

I already had my gun loaded and concealed on my person, just as I normally carry. Most shooting competitions require "cold ranges", where firearms remain unloaded until the competitors are on the line and ready to shoot, so I needed to clear my firearm. Also I wasn't going to use a concealment holster for the competition, so I needed to switch out my concealment holster for a more competition-friendly holster.

Being safety conscious I didn't want to handle a live firearm in a crowded room full of people, so I asked the people running the show how they wanted me to proceed. They seemed shocked that I'd had my gun on me the whole time, fifty people showed up with guns and I was literally the only person who'd actually carried mine in. Even more surprising to me was that the people running things, who were experienced in shooting competitions and deal with hundreds of shooters on a regular basis, literally hadn't even considered the prospect of someone showing up who was already carrying.

That just blew my mind. I didn't exactly take a poll, but I'd wager that most everyone in the room had their license to carry. I was the only one carrying.

In most of the other events I've participated in that similarly required a cold range, the beginning of the event always involved giving anyone who was carrying the opportunity to step up to the firing line and clear their weapon. To me having such a procedure seemed like obvious common-sense, of course some percentage of the people showing up to a shooting competition would be carrying. Apparently that's not so obvious, as their assumption was that everyone was showing up with unloaded guns in cases and bags. I was dumbfounded.

I try to remind myself not to project my thoughts and experiences onto others, since I know that such an assumption is quite often wrong. However that one totally caught me off guard. Fifty plus experienced pistol shooters plus the folks running the event itself, only one guy carrying, and no thought given to the notion that one would even do such a thing.

If you have statistics showing that a large proportion of CCW holders don't actually carry regularly, I'd love to see them.

I'm as much of a fan of statistics and hard data as anyone, but it amuses me the type of things that people expect statistics to exist for.

A survey would handle that fine. It's not exactly a controversial question like DGU.

eXceLon wrote:

In most of the other events I've participated in that similarly required a cold range, the beginning of the event always involved giving anyone who was carrying the opportunity to step up to the firing line and clear their weapon. To me having such a procedure seemed like obvious common-sense, of course some percentage of the people showing up to a shooting competition would be carrying. Apparently that's not so obvious, as their assumption was that everyone was showing up with unloaded guns in cases and bags. I was dumbfounded.

I don't understand why anyone would feel unsafe enough attending a shooting tournament so as to justify carrying, so I can see why they'd have that assumption.

You're not going to get good responses from the survey in any area that isn't totally pro-gun, permissive-carry. Gunnies have reason to be distrustful of the kind of groups usually conducting those surveys.

You, Darien, wouldn't be too happy to accept the survey results where the responses were primarily from pro-gun, permissive-carry regions.

So no, a survey would not handle that fine.

Quote:

I don't understand why anyone would feel unsafe enough attending a shooting tournament so as to justify carrying,

If you carry for protection, you carry everywhere. It's not about paranoia, it's about murphy's law. By definition, you're more likely to need your gun when you didn't think you would ahead of time. If you thought there was a good chance you'd need your gun, you'd just avoid the fucking situation.

You're not going to get good responses from the survey in any area that isn't totally pro-gun, permissive-carry. Gunnies have reason to be distrustful of the kind of groups usually conducting those surveys.

Yes, we've seen how much trust gunnies have for such things as 'research' and 'science'.

Quote:

You, Darien, wouldn't be too happy to accept the survey results where the responses were primarily from pro-gun, permissive-carry regions.

I was asking because I was curious, not to prove a point or make policy decisions. I wanted to know if people obtaining CCW permits purely so they can transport their weapons is a regular thing, because if so the problem is that transportation laws are broken. You shouldn't have to give someone a licence to carry concealed if all they want it for is to transport their gun.

Pont wrote:

If you carry for protection, you carry everywhere. It's not about paranoia, it's about murphy's law. By definition, you're more likely to need your gun when you didn't think you would ahead of time. If you thought there was a good chance you'd need your gun, you'd just avoid the fucking situation.

because if so the problem is that transportation laws are broken. You shouldn't have to give someone a licence to carry concealed if all they want it for is to transport their gun.

So you'll sign this here petition to overturn "no guns within 1000' of a school, whether you know there's a school or not" laws? Great!

Yes, transportation laws are whack.

Quote:

You realise Murphy's Laws aren't intended to be scientific, right?

Sometimes, coincidence isn't. It's not *really* murphy's law. As you-don't-really-need-a-gun-you're-just-paranoid people like to say, if you know a situation is dangerous, just don't go there. You carry for the times you can't avoid the danger or can't predict the danger.

Contrary to stereotype, most people who carry all-the-time have a good reason. Carrying is damned inconvenient in a lot of ways. The penis-enhancement chasers the anti-gun people fear exist, but also quickly lose interest. What good is it carrying an artificial big dick if nobody knows about it? And if you whip out your glock-dick, your CCW gets taken away. Yet even these people are vastly under-represented in crime. Maybe the common criminal is just too stupid to get even an easy-to-get CCW. Maybe they've already taken themselves out of eligibility by the time they think about getting one. Maybe just having a privilege to lose makes them more conscious of their actions. Who knows.

But, like I said, the people who actually do carry all the time usually have a reason. I know two women in the bay area who CCW. Given how hard it is to get a permit at all here, you better believe they have a good reason (or give excellent blowjobs). One has an ex-military ex-boyfiend and a restraining order. One is a jeweler.

because if so the problem is that transportation laws are broken. You shouldn't have to give someone a licence to carry concealed if all they want it for is to transport their gun.

So you'll sign this here petition to overturn "no guns within 1000' of a school, whether you know there's a school or not" laws? Great!

Yes, transportation laws are whack.

What petition? I'll certainly agree laws like that are stupid. If you're going to allow carry, you shouldn't be able to make a 'gun free zone' extend beyond a fence or other boundary.

Pont wrote:

But, like I said, the people who actually do carry all the time usually have a reason. I know two women in the bay area who CCW. Given how hard it is to get a permit at all here, you better believe they have a good reason (or give excellent blowjobs). One has an ex-military ex-boyfiend and a restraining order. One is a jeweler.

Perfect. Then there's no problem requiring a reason for a CCW licence.

Pont wrote:

Quote:

Yes, we've seen how much trust gunnies have for such things as 'research' and 'science'.

Nevertheless, things like that (the NY one wasn't the first) are the reason gunnies aren't trusting of any and all information gathering. Painting them as anti-science and anti-research is unfair. The ones in gun-hostile areas won't be easily giving out their information. The ones in gun-friendly areas will be more. Therefore, the survey data won't be satisfactory. Therefore, "a survey would handle that fine" is inaccurate. It could be done with an unbiased, expensive, full-on study (not a meta-study of newspaper articles or simply phone calls). Nobody on either side is willing to accept the results of such a study from the other side, so neither side will even bother to undertake such a study in the first place.

Quote:

Perfect. Then there's no problem requiring a reason for a CCW licence.

Theory and practice don't meet. In theory, it makes sense to require a reason. In practice, subjective judgment of the reason invariably leads to inequality, cronyism, and other abuses. In theory, you could then have a strict, objective list of valid reasons for a permit. In practice, that strict list offers no benefit over shall-issue for "self defense", but it does let legitimate applicants get denied.

Perfect. Then there's no problem requiring a reason for a CCW licence.

What is this intended to prevent, and how will it do that? Can you give some examples of events which this practice would have prevented, or reduced the likelihood of?

Quote:

I don't understand why anyone would feel unsafe enough attending a shooting tournament so as to justify carrying,

This sounds like "I don't need to wear a helmet because I know how to ride safely." Or maybe "If you thought you were so unsafe that you need to carry mace, why did you go out at all?" If it's a habit to take something everywhere, it's a habit to take something everywhere. That's what habits are.

Nevertheless, things like that (the NY one wasn't the first) are the reason gunnies aren't trusting of any and all information gathering. Painting them as anti-science and anti-research is unfair.

Bullshit. The NRA is not suppressing research because they're worried it'll lead to leaks and privacy violations, they're suppressing research because they don't like what the research is saying. Claiming it has anything to do with privacy is laughable.

I also don't have any problem tarring gunnies with the same brush, given that they seem perfectly content to sit quietly and not complain when the NRA is killing research for political reasons, but they'll kick up a massive stink the instant someone suggests something as benign as universal background checks.

Pont wrote:

Quote:

Perfect. Then there's no problem requiring a reason for a CCW licence.

Theory and practice don't meet. In theory, it makes sense to require a reason. In practice, subjective judgment of the reason invariably leads to inequality, cronyism, and other abuses. In theory, you could then have a strict, objective list of valid reasons for a permit. In practice, that strict list offers no benefit over shall-issue for "self defense", but it does let legitimate applicants get denied.

I don't understand why anyone would feel unsafe enough attending a shooting tournament so as to justify carrying, so I can see why they'd have that assumption.

I don't really play the "do I think I'm likely to be victimized at this place" game, because trying to predict such things is futile. I carry anytime I may do so.

Besides even if you considered your destination to be a relatively low-risk place, there's still the issue of getting there. It's not like I stepped on a transporter pad at home and materialized at the range.

.Darien wrote:

I was asking because I was curious, not to prove a point or make policy decisions. I wanted to know if people obtaining CCW permits purely so they can transport their weapons is a regular thing, because if so the problem is that transportation laws are broken.

They really are. If I recall correctly in Pennsylvania there are exceptions for traveling between your home and the range, however they didn't think to make any consideration for stopping at a gas station or restaurant along the way.

Pennsylvania law is also peculiar about what constitutes a "loaded firearm" for transportation purposes. A reasonable person would think that "loaded" means a ammunition in the gun, either in the chamber or in a magazine inserted in the gun. Under Pennsylvania law a firearm can be considered "loaded" just because there is a compatible magazine containing ammunition in proximity of the firearm. They have to be stored in separate containers, or separate compartments of the same container.

.Darien wrote:

The barrier to entry for carrying concealed weapons should always be as high as reasonably possible, if you are going to allow them at all. I regard that as self-evident.

To some people the existence of God is self-evident. You'll excuse me if I don't consider that to be a good reason to accept your argument.

Also, most people's CCW guns are of makes not exactly suited for USPSA.

There were some guys with custom race guns, mostly the organizers, but most were basic production models. Especially considering that it was an introduction to the sport, so most people would (reasonably) just bring whatever they already owned.

At any rate this would be all the more reason for having a clearing procedure, as someone carrying would need to clear and stow their carry piece and equip their competition gun.

I should note that I shared this anecdote precisely because it was an outlier. Most of the events/competitions I've gone to had a clearing procedure at the start of the match for just this situation, of which I would estimate about a fifth to a third of the participants would typically take advantage of since they were already carrying.

While one in fifty did surprise me, what surprised me more was that the organizers at this club hadn't even contemplated that this might come up. I'd never been to this club before, it was about an hour away from my normal range, and I got the impression this was one of those clubs run by "Fudds".

I also don't have any problem tarring gunnies with the same brush, given that they seem perfectly content to sit quietly and not complain when the NRA is killing research for political reasons, but they'll kick up a massive stink the instant someone suggests something as benign as universal background checks.

You seem to be forgetting all the pro-gun people in here who have expressed their dislike of the NRA, and who have proposed gun control ideas which would address the problems without such a heavy handed approach as banning. Your continued assertion that anyone who is pro-gun is willfully ignorant is insulting. Universal background checks are not necessarily benign depending on the way it is implemented. I personally suggested a way in which they could be done while respecting the privacy of the people. You admitted that it sounded fine and that you didnt understand the current system enough to comment further.

You seem to be forgetting all the pro-gun people in here who have expressed their dislike of the NRA

But the NRA is leading the discussion for GRAs. Gun rights advocates that are for some measure of reform are being misrepresented. Contrast this to the GCAs (gun control advocate) who are being represented by the extreme left. Regardless if they're moderate or extreme, the GCA is more likely to be better represented by the extreme left, that is some form of gun control is being advocated for. The moderate GRA, also hoping for some measure of gun control, if only better background checks, are being done a disservice by the NRA.

Especially considering that it was an introduction to the sport, so most people would (reasonably) just bring whatever they already owned.

Yeah, but I couldn't CCW my Glock 22. Not without a large jacket, at any rate. Most people I know who CCW do it with things in .380 or compact versions of the standard duty guns that have short stacks. Not exactly ideal for practical pistol sports.

Butl3r M0nk3y wrote:

Your continued assertion that anyone who is pro-gun is willfully ignorant is insulting.

Yeah, but I couldn't CCW my Glock 22. Not without a large jacket, at any rate. Most people I know who CCW do it with things in .380 or compact versions of the standard duty guns that have short stacks. Not exactly ideal for practical pistol sports.

You'd be surprised. Though my regular carry is my compact M&P, I can conceal my full size surprisingly well wearing a typical polo shirt.

but they'll kick up a massive stink the instant someone suggests something as benign as universal background checks.

I may be wrong, but from previous talks in this thread, the idea of a everybody buying guns having to do the same background check that you have to do if you buy from a dealer wasn't rejected outright by most of the pro-gun people in this thread.

There were some debates on the best way to get it set up, but the idea as a whole wasn't rejected outright.

I wouldn't lose much sleep if "universal background checks" were implemented, we already have that in my state for handguns. Of course that hasn't prevented my state from being a net-exporter of crime guns, and being one of the states that folks like Bloomberg accusingly point their finger at for their crime problems.

That said I'm in no rush to support it either, giving that there's vanishingly little evidence that it would do any real good, and just cause for suspecting that such a system would be used to further erode gun rights.

There's simply no evidence that criminals are getting their guns through such so-called "loopholes". That otherwise law abiding gun owners are unwittingly selling their guns to criminals in private sales, because there's no way to verify them. Studies have shown that a tiny fraction of criminals get their guns at gun shows, the vast majority obtain them through theft and intentional straw purchases, which universal background checks do exactly squat to prevent.

Though I know it's an unpopular opinion, I'm generally of the opinion that there is very little that can be reasonably done to prevent criminals from getting guns in this country. There's just no way to implement a regulatory regime where the law abiding have relatively unrestricted access to an item, while at the same time effectively keeping that item away from "bad guys".

Background checks are probably marginally effective for certain edge cases: I imagine keeping men with violent histories from buying guns probably reduces the risk of domestic violence incidents from turning fatal. If we could find a way to reliably identify them, it would probably be helpful against some spree-shooters. Those types of individuals probably aren't likely to seek out black-market sources for firearms. Of course the problem is that many of those people don't have any disqualifying history in the first place, and pass background checks with no problems.

Background checks won't do anything for the bulk of gun crime, which tends to be related to organized crime and drugs and more determined criminals. So long as America has guns, those people are never going to have any real problem getting them.

Justice delayed is justice denied. If you're going to infringe on a civil right, the burden should at least be on the infringer.

No kidding.

Supplicant: I think my boyfriend is going to try to kill me. I think I need a CCW.Bureaucrat: I don't think you do.Supplicant: How long is this appeal going to take?Bureaucrat: Well, the good news is that we'll fast track it if your boyfriend does actually make an attempt on your life in the meantime.

Honestly the only problem I have with the idea of a registration system for hand guns is the fact that countries that have gone with it ((Canada for example)) ended up having a bloated system that exploaded in cost and that they admit didn't actually do anything to help solve any of the problems they were thinking it was going to help with.

So I mean I wouldn't mind registering my handguns, but I do wonder what the GCA side has with spending tons of money on systems that don't work. It just seems odd to me, I mean if you just HAVE to spend money on something in order to feel that you are doing something about "the problem" why pick something that doesn't work?

I also don't have any problem tarring gunnies with the same brush, given that they seem perfectly content to sit quietly and not complain when the NRA is killing research for political reasons, but they'll kick up a massive stink the instant someone suggests something as benign as universal background checks.

You seem to be forgetting all the pro-gun people in here who have expressed their dislike of the NRA, and who have proposed gun control ideas which would address the problems without such a heavy handed approach as banning.

I'm not overly fond of the NRA, but I'm also not in favor of further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. The 'problems' most of the proposed solutions address were created by previous unconstitutional laws.

I'm also forced to admit that the NRA was right about the gun-control proclivities of the current presidential administration and Democratic party legislators, despite the frequent circumspect protests by those in favor of statism that no restrictive legislation could pass both houses.

Quote:

Universal background checks are not necessarily benign depending on the way it is implemented. I personally suggested a way in which they could be done while respecting the privacy of the people. You admitted that it sounded fine and that you didnt understand the current system enough to comment further.

I don't think any of the gun-control advocates in the thread are familiar with current laws, which makes it all the more suspicious when they advocate further regulations. The only consistent goal is a desire by such activists to reduce gun ownership nationally in the way it's been reduced in Chicago, New York and Massachusetts through decades of onerous and arbitrary state control.